This is evidence not only that Romney won the debate but that the electorate is primed to vote Romney. People who are in the tank for their candidate are going to say they won no matter what. Leaners are much more difficult to have state that the person they are leaning AGAINST won. The middle has eyes. They can see that Obama has failed. Even if the debate was actually a "tie" I think it would have shown a significant edge for Romney. It has been looking like Romney has been hovering around 52-53% (under the assumption that undecideds break for the challenger.) If this keeps up we might see a 54-55% Romney take.

I guess the difference was stark enough that even the most ardent Obama Pom Pom shakers find anything positive in terms of his performance.

I'd like to believe that the various mischaracterizations, half-truths, misleading statements, and outright lies about Romney (and conservatism in general) that the Dems have attempted to get to stick can't stand up to scrutiny when they're responded to directly on a national stage like that. But unfortunately I think it's more a measure of each candidates demeanor under pressure, and Obama clearly caved.

I'd also like to believe it all will make a difference, though so far I'm unconvinced that it did.

Romney made Urkel look like a little school child. The split screens proved it. I wonder if Urkel was suffering from Post Traumatic Grandpa Disorder. You know that one right? It's where your grandpa is a white guy raising you the left behind half white/black kid because your mom was a lousy leftard tramp.

I didn't think that Obama was any worse than he was in 2008, so I was pretty surprised to hear that almost no one is spinning it as anything less than a defeat for him.

Of course, I thought he was pretty bad in 2008 (just up against an opponent who wasn't so great himself). He's never been good at unscripted speaking; I think that people were just a lot more willing to project onto him back then.

Rush: Fox News had the largest segment of viewers. 65,000,000 viewers before counting Univision and such. That is a lot of viewers for such a drubbing. I very much doubt future debates will have such an audience.

Robert -- What does "jurisdiction" mean? What does "world court" mean?

Looking forward to your answers. By the way, the United States still has armies in conquered states Afghanistan and Iraq. And Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice are free. And there has not been a single national or international arrest warrant.

Why, do you suppose? Maybe your vocabulary limits your intelligence. Or maybe it's the other way round...

But, in 1929, Einstein was again sure he was "on the right track." Wolfgang Pauli wrote scathingly: "[Einstein's] never-failing inventiveness as well as his tenacious energy in the pursuit of [unification] guarantees us in recent years, on the average, one theory per annum… It is psychologically interesting that for some time the current theory is usually considered by its author to be the "definitive solution."

When he finally gave up the "distant parallelism" approach, Einstein wrote to Pauli: "Sie haben also recht gehabt, Sie Spitzbube," or "you were right after all, you rascal!"

The poll number definately comes from expectations - expectations that no one could beat Obama. That no one was better than Obama. But, now Romney has proven he is better than Obama at Obama's greatest strength - the spoken word.

So why would someone vote to re-elect Obama... its not because of the past four years???

So, appearances deceive, as we all know, but they do not deceive Robert Cook, presumably because he has some special insight others lack.

Whatever, dude. Romney crushed Obama, and looked more presidential than Obama. You should use your special insight, such as it is, to try to understand international relations.

Or, better, tell us again about how there is some international law that allows you to arrest George W. Bush, and Obama, and American soldiers. And then judge them in special chambers and send them to special camps.

The unfortunate truth of the world is that great criminals often escape punishment or even censure for their crimes. In fact, this is true more often than not. This does not in the least remove the stink or stain of guilt for mass murder from their gore-drenched hands.

It makes me laugh too. It's only hypothetical rape and murder, but it's politically incorrect to find anything about rape funny, including when it's only hypothetical. (I actually wrote a law review article about that.)

But something about Dukakis's impassive mug and knowing how much his absence of affect hurt him seems so funny now.

And I not only voted for Dukakis, I argued at the time that it was absolutely right for him not to take the bait and get emotional about the death penalty!

Talk about deception and a willingness to be deceived. I read the link from the first post. He's the author's bio:

Justin Krebs is a political organizer and writer based in New York City. He is the founder of Living Liberally, a nationwide network of 250 local clubs that create social events around progressive politics, and author of "538 Ways to Live, Work and Play Like a Liberal

You are a terrible fascist, Robert. You don't get to decide who is a criminal, in your fervent little mind. You don't get to imprison the duly elected executive officials of the greatest representative democracy on earth for using their constitutional powers.

Obviously, America is not for you, dude. I hear the Khmer Rouge is looking for a new leader. You should consider getting the fuck out of here, to the hills of Cambodia with your ideological brethren.

That is, [Romney-Obama] was by far the most decisive win they'd ever measured.

Though you wouldn't have known it from Prof. Althouse's live-blogging. I found this especially interesting after her recent hair-trigger responses of "racist," "repulsive," and "ugly" towards conservatives. Yet, when it's obvious that Obama is losing big, it barely registers with her.

Perhaps her "cruel neutrality" is not all that "cruel" or "neutral." Perhaps it's just "neutrality bullshit."

You guys are way too hard on Althouse lately. I, personally, have read the tea leaves and am 100% confident that Althouse already plans to officially back Romney. She has supported him for six years. She's already got the big editorial drafted in her mind, privately.

She's just waiting for the right moment to drop it.

I will tell you what she will call it even, but I don't want to steal her thunder.

It's the self righteous ones like Cook that are the most dangerous. They've built up the "enemy" so diligently in their own minds, they are now set to engage in mass murder of that "enemy" and perceived "collaborators". This is how organizations like the Khmer Rouge get traction, with the Cooks.

Romney does not seem in the least "presidential" to me, in the sense that this term is being used here, but rather like a used-car salesman. His manner is false and insincere, and his smile frozen.

My favorite part was when Obama would be talking about popular things, and Romney would gush "I'm for those TOO!". "I'm not going to give tax breaks to the wealthy!" "I'll cover pre-existing conditions too!"

If you define "superpower" as having the biggest and baddest military, then I think Rome most certainly was a superpower during Punic wars. Carthage was close though.

Rome, however, didn't really have a consistent standing military tradition until after the 2nd Punic war. Prior to that it was Consular armies raised for short periods of time to address local security issues. It wasn't until the 2nd century BC that Rome had more of a permanent standing army. when it took Greece and became an imperial power.

I realized I was politically aware during the D convention when Dukakis was nominated and the MSM were almost orgasmic in praise for his awesomeness. It was entirely artificial. I was watching and listening to the same thing but could not fathom how anyone could describe what they heard or the wonders of the man who said it the way they did.

The indifference to the rape attitude confirmed my belief that Dukakis would have been a pathetic leader.

Voted against Obama because I did not think he'd be a good leader either. I wouldn't follow him into a 7-11. Instead, I would drink my Slurpee by myself in a ditch.

"Justin Krebs is a political organizer and writer based in New York City. He is the founder of Living Liberally, a nationwide network of 250 local clubs that create social events around progressive politics, and author of "538 Ways to Live, Work and Play Like a Liberal

"Think he's playing this straight about who won the debate?"

As I read Krebs' article, he didn't rate either participant highly, or indicate he thought either of them "won."

The best part of that clip, for me, is Mondale's delighted response. He's genuinely happy (it appears to me) that Reagan got off such a zinger, even at his own expense.

Can you imagine Obama (or any Democrat: Kerry, Reid, Pelosi) (or most Republicans for that matter) being so natural and comfortable about the political fight of their campaign for (re-)election, in today's world?

What are the chances that if I googled this that it would be complete horseshit? I'm guessing 100%

It turns out that when Obama told this big lie to the congregation, the Congress had two weeks before passed the waiver for the Stafford Act for New Orleans. And Obama voted against it (because of the Iraq funding).

I think this is an effect of low expectations following media's picture of Pomney. He was not only good, he shown capacity to learn well and fast during Republican debates.

I only watched the later debates. However, although I can't be sure, judging by media coverege of the earlier ones, I'm still undesided whether Romney is good learner, or a good tactician, or both.

I also think that Romney would have a much more difficult task if Obama did not have record, because Obama can lie with passion and is cinical enough to do this, while Romney is obviously more comfortable with dry facts. I think that this is a reason he comes through as somewhat wooden and boring relatively to other politicians. I never saw this as a problem. I prefer better executive than better salesman at the helm.

Being "presidential" surely doesn't include going on Conan or The View and just being "one of the guys/gals", does it?

You really think Romney won't do that if he's elected?

If he does, he deserves every bit of ridicule that can be thrown at him. An American President is not a celebrity and should not act as such. Appearing on The View is an insult to the innate dignity of the office.

The proper response to the question that derailed Dukakis should have been something like this:

"As a man--as a husband and father--I would almost certainly feel great hatred toward the man who raped and murdered my wife, and I would probably wish him to be punished terribly, even tormented and tortured, before suffering a terrible death.

"But I believe in our system of justice. And our system of justice was not intended to serve as an instrument of collective or personal revenge. It was created precisely to remove the cruelty of caprice or emotion from our dispensation of justice. It is meant to render impartial judgments and apply punishment dispassionately, and with mercy, where warranted. I believe our system of justice is the best and fairest in the world, and it can only remain so if we stand by it and hold it to our highest standards, and if we resist the powerful and universal urge to seek the satisfaction of avenging personal wrongs done to us."

Lieberman and Landrieu were joined by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a presidential hopeful who made the most of the opportunity offered by a swarming international media to say he was "embarrassed" by the White House's handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

[...]

At the hearing Monday, Obama seemed unsatisfied with many of the answers Powell gave. Asked why the federal government had not waived the requirement of a 10 percent matching payment from local governments for cleanup and public buildings, as it had for Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York, Powell said it didn't need to because the state could pay the match using federal money.

Cook - so all that did was reinforce to me the idea that half of liberals are squishes. Vengeance is a normal human behavior and should be encouraged for mental stability. To deny vengeance is unhealthy and uncivilized. Somehow the Roman Republic/Empire existed for a 1000 years despite much harsher penalties.

If Cookie ruled the world he'd finally get some godammed respect, that's what! The man's been studying these things for years. What things? Things!! And he's got it all figgered out and you better show him some respect, Alex, cause you obviously don't have it all figgered out and hop from foot to foot on alternate Tuesdays and just listen to the man, gawdammit!!!

Needless to say, garage ignores the basic point, which is that when Obama gave his speech he knew that the Stafford waiver had been granted.

Also, there's this:

Asked why the federal government had not waived the requirement of a 10 percent matching payment from local governments for cleanup and public buildings, as it had for Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York, Powell said it didn't need to because the state could pay the match using federal money.

Obama isn't just a liar. He's a demagogue who lies in order to foment racial resentment solely for purposes of his own political gain.

But that's Romney's problem, isn't it? What's the memorable line from last night?

AF: JFK probably had memorable lines in his debate with Nixon, but what people remembered, or at least we are told, was Nixon's five o'clock shadow and rumpled appearance compared to JFK's stunning movie star looks and easy speaking confidence.

I wouldn't put Romney into JFK glamor territory, but for sheer energy and ease he dominated Obama. That's what people will remember, and doubly so since they have been told constantly what a loser, what a stiff, what a far-right wacko Romney is by the media and by the Obama campaign.

Romney did what Obama was supposed to do -- blow his opponent off the stage.

This is a big boost for Romney and big credibility loss for the media and Obama.

Yeh, that what I suspected too, that you'll not check the facts, but go to the media commissars to tell you want to think.Here is the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2206

As you can see the final vote was on 5/24/2007 (if you want to check, Obama did vote 'Nay') and it was signed by the President on 5/25. The date on the Obama's nasty speech tape that I saw is 6/5/2007.

garage, your link refers to H.R. 1591, which called for a withdrawal from Iraq and was vetoed by President Bush.

The actual U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 was H.R.2206. The vote in the Senate was 80 Yea 14 Nay. Barack Obama was one of the Nays.

Garage:At the hearing Monday, Obama seemed unsatisfied with many of the answers Powell gave. Asked why the federal government had not waived the requirement of a 10 percent matching payment from local governments for cleanup and public buildings, as it had for Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York, Powell said it didn't need to because the state could pay the match using federal money.

But then when he had the opportunity to do something about it rather than just give a grandstanding speech, he failed to, once again.

Veering off to examine Obama's ugliness -- and the truth here is really ugly -- is not Romney's plan, but who says you are doing his bidding? Do what you want.

He's got the narrative shifted in his favor that enough people could see him as a viable alternative to Other Barry II. He did that without needing to look to 2007, but by focusing on Other Barry's failures from 2008-last night. Otehr Barry sucks, and Romney needs to close this out focusing on the suck of Other Barry's failures and the lack of any clue about how to advance the country's interests.

AF: JFK probably had memorable lines in his debate with Nixon, but what people remembered, or at least we are told, was Nixon's five o'clock shadow and rumpled appearance compared to JFK's stunning movie star looks and easy speaking confidence.

I wouldn't put Romney into JFK glamor territory . . .

Neither would I. Nor would I put Obama in Richard Nixon-ugly category. So I'm not sure this one holds up. If we're talking about charisma, Romney is definitely being graded on a curvey.

This debate was like a re-run of the Battle of Midway when the Japanese Navy Admirals suffering from victory disease set up a complex plan that they had really never practiced and were attacked by a smarter and better band of warriors with a single minded intent.

That dang Romney failed to live up to the caricature the Left drew of him. It's funny that media elites are piling on Lehrer -- as if he didn't try mightily to help Barack out a time or two -- instead of looking at themselves. For they created this arrogant monster. They feed him loving coverage every day and never fail to miss a chance to ask Obama a tough question. No wonder that when challenged with facts and rebuttals to his weak arguments Obama turned into a stuttering fool, letting his peevishness show a little too much.

For the rest of us, this was the Mitt we know and the Obama we know all too well. Nothing new to see here. What is the fuss all about? Did people actually believe the hype?

But I will say this, phx. If you're referring to what I said about garage mahal, then you're ignoring the fact that I provided 3 links to substantiate my points. What do you do to substantiate your glum prophesies about Romney?

Anyway, what should one say about a commenter who regularly posts misleading or outright false comments that are nothing but talking points he's picked up elsewhere? Would you say that he's dishonest?

Fine. Say that. But don't demand that people be nice to people whose sole purpose is to mislead.

I doubt a President Romney would go on the View in lieu of meeting with our allies when they are in town-----------------It drove the Christian Zionist Right hysterical their beloved "Bibi" didn't have his wasy....But not just Obama, but most past Presidents will not just come a running when the leader of a crappy little country (or even a major power) snaps his fingers and demands a meeting.

The leader of small bestest, most special friend allied nations don't just show up and demand summits. Even bestest friends like Greece, the Bahamas, Georgia and Jordam.Nor do State and the White HOuse respond well to public demands by the likes of major powers breaching protocols and demanding time for impromptu Summitry in the media.

A President Romney, especially as a skilled exec..will not just run to meet when the PM of Ireland or Peru or New Guinea wants it. Nor bigger players like Vladimir Putin.The response is

"My people will meet with your people on issues that need working on over days, weeks, months. Along the way, if an impass is hit, then my Secretary of State and his counterpart with you will try to get through the logjams as the principal parties with all the facts and advisors on negotiations. They can't - then both brief us on why. Then we talk as the top execs.Then once other people spend hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of hours hashing matters out and we get some agreement,then we Leaders talk on phone with the delegations to iron out the last details behind closed doors. Once that is done, THEN we publicly meet."

For those who favor Obama and still can't wrap their minds around what they saw last night, there are two concepts that may help you. First, the next debate will be worse for Obama because of the Taranto Principle. Second, the MSM reaction to the debate will only enhance the negative effect the Taranto Principle has on Obama.

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

Presidents can pull off lines like those, but they have to be earned. Some tit of a PM going "on the beaches" is spouting a lot of fine words, but no one remembers those words because they haven't been earned -- they're just sounds coming out of a politician's piehole. Same with all Obama's rhetoric. No one remembers it (other than the cheap sloganeering), because none of it has been earned by action or struggle.

@AF,But that's Romney's problem, isn't it? What's the memorable line from last night?

Take your pick:"Trickle-down government""You don't pick the winners and losers, you just pick the losers."“Look, I got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I will believe it.”

"Comrade Cookie said....I had forgotten that we have become so debased that many of us think we should look to violent movies and television shows, (e.g., 24), to guide our policies and our behavior in the world."

You don't need an umlaut key, the name is Jodl not Jödl. (The latter is a name in German, in fact the General who signed the surrender documents was named Gustav Jödl, but the fellow you're talking about is Alfred Jodl, nicht wahr?)